Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 62 (ORI)

Monisha Sharma v. Ashis Sharma

2016-01-22

BISWAJIT MOHANTY, VINOD PRASAD

body2016
JUDGMENT : Biswajit Mohanty, J. The appellant has filed the present MATA with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 6.7.2015 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in C.P. No.171 of 2014 by which the learned Judge, Family Court decreed the above Civil Proceeding on contest against the appellant (present respondent) and declared that the marriage solemnized between the appellant and respondent on 10.12.2013 stood dissolved by decree of divorce. Learned Judge, Family Court further directed the respondent to pay permanent alimony of Rs.3,00,000/-to the appellant within a period of one month. 2. The short facts of this case are that the marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized at Cuttack on 10.12.2013 as per Hindu rites and customs whereafter both of them lived together in the house of the respondent. According to the respondent, who moved the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in C.P. No.171 of 2014 against the appellant for dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce took the stand that from the very beginning of their marital life, the appellant told before the respondent that she had been forced by her parents to marry respondent against her will and consent as she was having intimacy with another person and they had already decided to marry. Accordingly, the appellant distanced herself from the respondent and did not allow him to have cohabitation with the respondent. This greatly shocked the respondent. It is the case of the respondent that the appellant continued to be in touch with the other person through her mobile phone and when the respondent protested, she became furious and started scolding him in filthy language. She also behaved with the respondent in an arrogant and abnormal manner. All these things were brought to the notice of the parents of the appellant. Thereafter, on being advised by them, the respondent took the appellant to Puri on a pleasure trip on the eve of New Year’s Day and stayed there in a hotel on 31.12.2013 and on 1.1.2014. During their stay, they attended the New Year’s party held in that hotel and to his utter surprise, the respondent found the appellant smoking cigarettes and taking wine while compelling the respondent to join her. On refusal, the appellant misbehaved with him before others. During their stay, they attended the New Year’s party held in that hotel and to his utter surprise, the respondent found the appellant smoking cigarettes and taking wine while compelling the respondent to join her. On refusal, the appellant misbehaved with him before others. Being unable to tolerate the same, the respondent took the appellant inside the room where the appellant slept separately and refused to have physical relationship with the respondent. Subsequently, on 10.2.2014 the appellant went to her parental house with her brother. During her stay there on 12.2.2014 at about 8.30 P.M., the respondent was informed by his father-in-law that the appellant had been to parlour along with her cousin sister but fled away there from. So, her father lodged a missing report at Lalbag Police Station on 13.2.2014. On 14.2.2014, the appellant returned back to her father’s house. From the police enquiry, it revealed that the appellant with the assistance of one Utkal Tiwari had been to Kolkata with an intention to proceed there from to Delhi to join with the other person with whom she had intimacy. But when the plan of the appellant could not fructify, she returned back. All these acts and conduct of the appellant caused much mental agony to the respondent. However, to resolve the dispute, family members of both parties held a Panch meeting in the house of the mediator -Brij Kishore Sharma on 19.2.2014. In the said meeting, it was decided that to keep the prestige and dignity of both the families both parties should go for divorce on mutual consent. But thereafter, the appellant and her parents did not come forward for divorce on mutual consent. However, being physically and mentally tortured by the appellant in the aforesaid manner and on account of non-consummation of their marriage and being unable to live with the appellant under one roof any further, the respondent filed C.P. No.171 of 2014 before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack. 3. The appellant filed written statement challenging the maintainability of the divorce petition while denying the allegations of the respondent. Before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, the appellant took the plea that from the beginning that the respondent not only misbehaved with her but also tortured the appellant physically and mentally for no fault of her while casting doubt on her character without any basis. Before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, the appellant took the plea that from the beginning that the respondent not only misbehaved with her but also tortured the appellant physically and mentally for no fault of her while casting doubt on her character without any basis. The appellant was confined in a room by the respondent and his parents and was not allowed to take food nor to talk with her family members over mobile phone. Further, the appellant took the stand that with the apprehension that she might take any legal action against the respondent and his parents, the respondent filed divorce petition making all sorts of false allegations against her. 4. Upon appreciation of evidence on record, vide impugned judgment dated 6.7.2015, the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack has inter alia returned a finding that the appellant has refused to keep sexual relationship with the respondent from the beginning of their marital life till her departure from her matrimonial home which thus led to non-consummation of their marriage followed by their separation and irretrievable breakdown of their marriage. Further, the learned Judge, Family Court came to a conclusion that thus the respondent was subjected to mental cruelty by the conduct and behaviour of the appellant and the respondent was deprived of getting marital bliss for which the appellant was squarely responsible. As such both parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. For all these reasons, probably in order to settle the matter on 19.2.2014, the appellant and her parents disclosed their decision for divorce on mutual consent of both parties. However, for reasons best to known to them, instead of proceeding in that direction, they retreated whereby the respondent was compelled to approach the learned Judge, Family Court. As indicated, learned Judge, Family early decreed the civil proceeding on contest and declared the marriage solemnized between the appellant and respondent stood dissolved by a decree of divorce. Further, the learned Judge, Family Court awarded a permanent alimony of Rs.3,00,000/-to the appellant. Challenging the said impugned judgment dated 6.7.2015, the appellant filed the present Matrimonial Appeal. 5. During pendency of this MATA, it appears that both the parties have settled the matter. In fact, pursuant to our direction dated 14.1.2016, both the appellant and respondent appeared in person on 18.1.2016. Challenging the said impugned judgment dated 6.7.2015, the appellant filed the present Matrimonial Appeal. 5. During pendency of this MATA, it appears that both the parties have settled the matter. In fact, pursuant to our direction dated 14.1.2016, both the appellant and respondent appeared in person on 18.1.2016. Though, the respondent stated that by way of compromise, he has paid Rs.7,00,000/-to the appellant, the appellant disputed the same. However, on being questioned in open Court in presence of her father and her counsel, the appellant stated unequivocally that she had accepted Rs.3,00,000/-by way of compromise of the lis. In such background, according to our considered opinion, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present appeal as the compromise entered into between both the spouses is complete and acted upon and hence they are bound by the compromise and they cannot resile from the same. 6. However, since the parties have given a quietus to the matter, it is directed that all the allegations and counter-allegations made by the parties against each other and the finding of the learned court below as to character of appellant should be ignored and would have no effect so that both the parties, who are very young, can start their lives afresh without in any way being burdened by such allegations and counter-allegations and findings of the learned court below. Accordingly, the MATA is disposed of.